| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:1407-1408
© 2001 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Address reprint requests to Dr Edmunds, Editor, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 5000 Ravdin Court, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283
e-mail: ats{at}uphs.upenn.edu
Your editor is unqualified to hold a Stradivarius violin, let alone tune one. But like a Stradivarius The Annals is a precious and unique instrument. It is the largest and most widely read journal of our specialties and welcomes to its pages all practicing cardiac and general thoracic surgeons to exchange information for the benefit of patients. But, like a fine violin The Annals needs constant tuning.
The Annals continues to grow. A total of 1,106 original articles were received in 2000 as compared to 1,008 in 1999, an increase of 9.7%. Sixty one percent of the 2,302 manuscripts received were sent from abroad. The number of manuscripts produced by North Americans remained constant at about 900 in 2000, but the number produced by international authors increased by 121. The number of published articles was essentially equal for onshore and offshore authors.
The Annals is a scientific journal of cardiac and general thoracic surgeons who are both clinicians and investigators. Seventy seven percent of The Annals’ 4,790 published pages in 2000 were original articles. Case reports, How To Do It articles and Images made up 10% of the journal; editorials and commentaries, 3.2%; and reviews, correspondence and indexes, 10%. The composition of The Annals emphasizes new information; correspondence, commentaries and editorials make its pages interactive.
Peer review also makes The Annals interactive. In 2000 a total of 5,311 requested reviews were returned for an overall average of 2.3 reviews per manuscript. Each original manuscript received at least 3 reviews, which, for the most part, were objective critiques designed to strengthen the scientific quality of the article regardless of the decision to publish. One thousand six hundred fifty four reviewers participated in this dynamic process.
The steady growth of The Annals—22.6% increase in manuscripts received; 18.7% increase in pages published over the last five years—necessitates some tuning. The editorial board of The Annals is too small and international surgeons are underrepresented. In 1986 The Annals published 80 pages per editorial board member; in 2000 this ratio was 155. In contrast our sister journals, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, published 78 and 45 pages/editorial board member in 2000, respectively. In the coming months watch for new names as The Annals better represents our readers and authors on the editorial board.
Long years of service and retirements, modest reorganization and "experiments," as promised last July [1], have introduced changes to the Editorial Board [2]. Associate Editors Drs Benfield and Dobell retired after 22 and 25 years, respectively, of service to The Annals. In addition, seven editorial board members, four of whom extended a year, completed their terms. Doctor Ferguson, myself and undoubtedly all who read The Annals appreciate the countless hours generously given by these dedicated, fair minded, intelligent surgeons. Reviews and Updates are now consolidated under Dr Richard Novick. Doctor Gary Grunkemeier is Associate Editor for Statistics and Dr Jerry Rainer will manage "Our Surgical Heritage." Doctor William Gay is continuing to develop the mission of Associate Editor for Language. In addition to Dr Gay’s initiative, a change in the peer review process for Case Reports, How To Do It articles and Images is introduced. Four new surgeons will select reviewers, review reviews and recommend publication or not to the editor. Restricted access to The Annals’ database imposed by our archaic manuscript tracking system dictates that these individuals be near the editorial office. In the year 2000, 765 Case Reports, How To Do It articles and Images were received (33.2% of the total manuscripts) to fill 10% of The Annals’ pages. The present size and continuing growth of The Annals requires delegation of new peer review responsibilities to Associate Editors, who can devote more attention to always insuring a fair review.
A new revision of "Information for Authors" is receiving finishing touches. Although it seems that most authors ignore this helpful document, time, money and angst would be saved if authors read it before sending in manuscripts, rather than endure a hounding from the editorial office afterwards. The most important changes are word limit guidelines and submission of a diskette with five paper copies of manuscripts and illustrations. The submission of a diskette in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect begins to prepare authors, the editorial office and reviewers for the advent of electronic peer review.
One of the biggest jobs of the editorial office staff is to identify a new manuscript tracking system to replace our current DOS based, ancient operating system that is incompatible with Windows. Regardless of marketing statements claiming otherwise, all of the commercial systems presently sold are "works in progress." Your editorial office has had in house demonstrations by three vendors and "test driven" two systems, but is not ready to buy. However, there is much to be done between now and then.
Authors must begin to routinely submit diskettes and eventually (not yet) electronic files of tables and illustrations in addition to paper copies. These submissions make it possible to develop procedures for electronic peer review. Although scanners exist, scanning documents and illustrations requires additional staff, equipment and space, all of which cost money that is not available. We also need to identify author and reviewer expertise by keywords. "Keywords" is an accurate, flexible and efficient system for identifying and cataloging medical knowledge easily. When we recruit additional staff we will contact most of you to learn of your individual interests and expertise by keywords.
The main advantage of electronic peer review is time. But the time delay between submitting a paper and its appearance in print is not only due to long distances and dithering postal services. The editorial office tries to get the initial peer review done and a letter to the author within two months. It takes a minimum of 12 weeks from the time a manuscript is accepted until it is published; only one of those weeks involves author proofs and the rest involves the interaction between publisher (Elsevier) and printer (Cadmus). With few exceptions most of the delay after initial peer review is due to author delays in revising manuscripts and returning proofs. Electronic peer review can and will substantially speed up this process, but after the novelty wears off, delays will still occur because authors and reviewers are busy people.
Unfortunately, electronic peer review will not save money. After a new manuscript tracking system and web hosting vendor are chosen, the editorial office will continue to process both paper and electronic submissions for several years. Not all of our colleagues have access to the Internet and most of us are just learning to use it regularly. Authors submitting manuscripts electronically will need to learn a log-in process and "help support" will be needed for some. The best way to submit illustrations and tables needs to be defined. The editorial office will need separate lists of electronic and paper reviewers; it will take time to wean 1,654 reviewers, located around the world, off paper. Two years after posting we receive only 30% of our reviews online at http://www.sts.org/annals/review. The editorial office will need more staff and more space. None of the tasks ahead are insurmountable; time and money will be found; The Annals will continue to grow; but we cannot procrastinate our transition to electronic peer review.
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery is a living chronicle of your interests and activities. Its focus is original information that improves patient care. It is interactive and dynamic. Now we must tune The Annals to play the electronic song.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
